Author
Topic: Bee stories on NPR today (Read 4896 times)

ah, but you miss my point about Marxist. Obama was sold as a moderate. he is a Marxist. he was brought up that way, has associated with people who embrace the ideology, taught Marxist revolution ideology in his classes, sat in a black liberation theology church for 20 years (Malcolm x Marxism), and has done nothing since being elected except go farther left.

Yeah and he's not even a US citizen!!!

Somehow I knew the teabaggers would hijack this thread.

Why does the government (minimally) support NPR and PBS? It provides the only free, educational, advertising-free programming that exists in those media. Everything else is brain-rotting, intelligence-insulting crap.

Why does the government (minimally) support NPR and PBS? It provides the only free, educational, advertising-free programming that exists in those media. Everything else is brain-rotting, intelligence-insulting crap

.

so advertising dollars are bad...they might corrupt? but government dollars are good...because we know that the government has only the best of intentions when it comes to information.....

i would argue that your conclusion is crap, but your conclusion might make the point about what comes from NPR?

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

I refuse to listen to NPR. I make up my own mind for myself and can rationalize and think. God gave me a brain to use......enuff said. I went to school, they taught me what they thought of the world, I went to college, they taught me what they thought of the world, none of them taught what the world really is. They keep rewriting history. I read for myself and find out what the world really is. :-D

ah, but you miss my point about Marxist. Obama was sold as a moderate. he is a Marxist.

blah blah blah... Marxist... blah blah blah. note the words that set the tone! :-D This is where the extreme right falls apart. Assertions with no reason, evidence, I was a Marxist when I was 12 years old. Lasted about 6 months. Does that make me a Marxist today? And you want an example of where Marxism has worked. How about a bee hive?

Can you provide an example of where libertarianism has worked? Not likely since no libertarian society has ever existed. I don't know what Obama was "sold" as, but he has been more conservative than I expected. More than anything, he is trying to synthesize solutions that can pass the Congress. In no way do I see a desire on his part to introduce socialism, "the ownership of the means of production by the state". The only truly socialist thing he has done was to buy GM and Chrysler. I think he hated doing that and will be selling off all government shares as soon as possible. I think he did this because he saw the cascade of collapse that would follow if those companies went down. Remember that it was Bush who bought AIG and the banks... and for the same reason.

Honestly, I think the cult of the individual reached absurd extremes under 8 years of Republican rule. No regulation led to the housing collapse, banking collapse, and the BP oil leak. But in the end, where was the corporate responsibility? If the government fails to regulate, the government ends up picking up the pieces. Companies will always be ruined by the demand for short term profits at the cost of long term sustainability. Someone has to actually be looking after the public interest. NPR is doing its part.

he has no problems getting things passed. he has the majority in both houses.

while i personally have some libertarian leanings, i do not advocate it in it's pure form.

the housing and banking collapse came from regulation. see Community Reinvestment Act. it was done by the very same democrats who today were applauded as Obama signed legislation that will further slow any recovery and cost more jobs.

Auto industry. banking-dictating salaries, bonuses, taking over student loans, todays legislation. health care. energy (soon to pass). there is very little that he has not put his finger into.

even he knows that doing as Hugo did would not fly. it has to be done be degrees. you can compare what has happened in Venezuela to what has been done here, if not to the same degree. regulation is control.

i don't believe that individualism can be over done. government certainly can be.

i'll let you know when i'm ready to move into a beehive....it probably won't be soon.

Quote

If the government fails to regulate, the government ends up picking up the pieces

when the government regulates, it ends up picking up the pieces of the unintended consequences. see above. if the government allows market forces to dictate success and failure, people make the choices about what to support. he didn't take GM and Chrysler because he was afraid of a cascade, he did it because it was a chance for the government to intervene and to support all those union (socialist) workers that voted for him.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Don't agree on this point....The 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall made it OK for both Investment Banking and Deposit Banking to be under a single corporate umbrella. After that the banking PhD's figured out how to bundle crappy loans and sell various tiers as investment grade bonds. This created lots more demand for these crappy loans (even to the point where Wall Street created synthetic versions to track various portfolios). The companies doing the loan origination got more and more lax in their standards as everything they wrote got bought by the investment banks (since they didn't have to hold the note).

Quote

one of my favorite words is 'alleged'.

I love this point...It is so true. My favorite ones are "Linked to" and "associated with" which are usually in health related articles. I remember from my first day of Statistics that "correlation doesn't equal causation" but it seems like most journalists never had to take stats; otherwise they would call BS occasionally....Tim

he has no problems getting things passed. he has the majority in both houses....

the housing and banking collapse came from regulation. see Community Reinvestment Act. it was done by the very same democrats who today were applauded as Obama signed legislation that will further slow any recovery and cost more jobs.

Lots of irony here. Republicans had the Presidency and a majority in both houses for 6 years under Bush. Why did they not rescind this horrible law of which you speak?

Quote

even he knows that doing as Hugo did would not fly. it has to be done be degrees. you can compare what has happened in Venezuela to what has been done here, if not to the same degree. regulation is control.

Seems to me people are working themselves into a froth over nothing. There was far more government regulation under Nixon, who introduced wage and price controls . If Obama got everything he wanted in terms of regulation, it would take us back only to the days of JFK and Johnson. Not back to Nixon.

Quote

i don't believe that individualism can be over done. government certainly can be.

Well, we've had this discussion before. It comes down to whether you want to have a country or just an aggregation of individuals. Social and economic stability are just as important as military defense if you want to have a real country. America has never been this unrestricted individualistic model you seem to want. Even the Wild West had laws and regulations.

Quote

i'll let you know when i'm ready to move into a beehive....it probably won't be soon.

I can see you as the queen. Well.... a queen who gives the workers lots of autonomy. :-D

this, along with Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals have been the blueprints for the left. Hillary was an admirer of Alinsky and had met him. she referenced to him several times in her writings. when Obama was involved in community organizing, several of his mentors had trained at an Alinsky foundation called the Industrial Areas Foundation. the IAF is involved it the "social justice" movement, which is a socialist community organizing (surprise) movement. these are the people that the left reveres and who's methods they follow. nothing happens by accident.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Republicans had the Presidency and a majority in both houses for 6 years under Bush. Why did they not rescind this horrible law of which you speak?

good question. bush did warn about the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, but the dems in congress blocked any regulation. he never had the super majority that obama has. those were better times, though...weren't they. look what happened after the dems took over congress :evil:

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Don't agree on this point....The 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall made it OK for both Investment Banking and Deposit Banking to be under a single corporate umbrella. After that the banking PhD's figured out how to bundle crappy loans and sell various tiers as investment grade bonds. This created lots more demand for these crappy loans (even to the point where Wall Street created synthetic versions to track various portfolios). The companies doing the loan origination got more and more lax in their standards as everything they wrote got bought by the investment banks (since they didn't have to hold the note).

that might have contributed, but the crappy loans came because congress demanded that banks loan to people who could not afford the loan. they they gaunted through Freddie and fanny that there would be no risk to the banks. threaten banks, then guarantee no risk....even then we knew the outcome.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

that might have contributed, but the crappy loans came because congress demanded that banks loan to people who could not afford the loan. they they gaunted through Freddie and fanny that there would be no risk to the banks. threaten banks, then guarantee no risk....even then we knew the outcome.

I don't dismiss the roll of the changes that Clinton and Congress made to increase home ownership...Good intentions, bad result. And also the roll of the GSE's; but that said, subprime lending was only about 9% of the market for mortgage loans from 1996 until 2004. In 2004 the rules for capital at banks were relaxed so that the banks could lever up at 30 to 1. Then came the explosion of loans (then up to 21%). So my contention is that the blame mostly is at the feet of Wall Street who created huge demand for subprime and liar loans and enabled lots of shady loan origination companies to pop up almost overnight. A lot of this origination wasn't being done by the FDIC banks (the ones that had a mandate from Congress).

the housing and banking collapse came from regulation. see Community Reinvestment Act.

The rapid increase in subprime loans--from 4% to 25% as I recall--was the prime factor. The majority of these loans originated from lenders not regulated by CRA. And CRA loans performed better than subprime. The CRA line is something fed to the public via such austere news organizations as Fox. And people believe it because they hear it so much.

Remember when you had to have a certain income in order to get a loan? Well from 2005-2007 (and even early into 2008) there were "Liar Loans" where you didn't have to show income, just had to have a good credit rating. People in California bought 3,5 or even 10 properties, betting that they would increase in value and then they could sell them. It was a Ponzi scheme. Then there were "Pick-a-Pay" loans where you could pick a payment that didn't even cover interest. Of course, after 3 years the payment "reset" to a fully amortized payment that would cover the interest and repay the (now larger) principle over the remained 27 years of the mortgage. Didn't take much to sink that ship. When I saw the reset graph, I knew we were in big trouble. I hadn't been in the banking business for 20 years, and I knew immediately. I'm not a rocket scientist (big surprise). So someone knew. Many people knew. But greed reined adn the naysayers were probably labeled as liberals.

Then, these subprime loans that were destined to fail were packaged together and somehow received high credit ratings from Moodys and Standard and Poor's. Why? Because Moodys and S&P are paid by the people they are rating. In the late 90s, I heard Moodys admit that they kept the investment grade country rating in place for Indonesia longer than they should have because they wanted to support the clients (e.g. our pension funds and insurance companies and banks) that had already invested there based on the old ratings. So what did that do for the ones that were just about to invest? Good money after bad. This whole house of cards could have been avoided with just a bit more regulation. But I guess "regulation" is anathema. Just tell that to the people in the Gulf.

Well from 2005-2007 (and even early into 2008) there were "Liar Loans" where you didn't have to show income, just had to have a good credit rating. People in California bought 3,5 or even 10 properties, betting that they would increase in value and then they could sell them.

you are right and wrong and believe it or not, we can have a discussion without you trashing fox news of whom you obviously know nothing about.

the beginning of the problem started in 1977. every point that you made can be traced back to the original CRA and it's later '90's evolutions EXCEPT the low interest rates that made the loans all the more attractive.while i am not usually a fan of wikipedia, this lists all the changes to the original act.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

it's not that there was no fault with the banks for what they did, but they did not cause the problem, the regulations did. the banks saw a chance to make money at no risk because they were guaranteed no risk. all the risk was put on the governemnt...or more accurately, the tax payer.

the CRA was a pet project of Barny Franks, Chris Dodd, etc. even when the republicans had the majority, it was not enough to override their protection of the CRA and Freddie and Fannie. throw in a little Acorn and their intimidation tactics and you have part of the makings of a disaster.

bad as this is, it's a fantastic example of the Law Of Unintended Consequences.....after all, who could be against helping low income families??

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

and may i add that if someone is to stupid to know that they can't afford the loan, or they take out a loan for 125% of the value of their home, they are pretty much to stupid to live. but, hey, that's how we picked up the rental......

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

WOWIE! ZOWI! ~ I think this thread should be deleted! We're beekeepers for heavens sakes but it hurts my heart to read all this "crap!" I say "CRAP" in a loving way!My dh works for NPR & it's the voice of reason! People who work there make little money, do the job for the love of the job, are so committed to the "TRUTH", are the best & nicest people I have ever met in my life that it kills me to to read the previous posts from beekeepers that I respect. I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS....I only want to read about beekeeping...please!!!

(as an aside ~ I own a business & I am always donating to many businesses but especially public radio. I kid my dh that he only thinks that I am a NON PROFIT too because he expects me to donate. All businesses are having a hard time but PR has expecially been cut so please don't believe the posts that say they are gov. funded. It's not true...don't even get me started on the OIL SPILL in the gulf ~ I'm in ALASKA & have family who lost their lively hood to the Exxon Valdez.... OK ~ See what has happened!!!!!!)